Information on the hill climb fatalities

[JekylandHyde]

As far as I know, there have been two fatalities in the PA hillclimbs in their entire history.

From what I understand, a Corvette river passed at at Weatherly and another Corvette driver passed away at duryea (or was it Pagoda).

Can anyone answer and (or all) of these questions:

1. What years did these accidents happen?

2. What class were these cars being running in?

3. Did the car's have roll bars or roll cages?

4. How many hills or how many years of climbing did the driver's have experience with?

5. What kind of times were the cars posting?

Thanks,

[Ron Mann]

I believe the first accident was at Duryea...1977. Sampson (Sam) Osborn Jr. in the #333 Formula II LeGrand...wrecked somewhere near the ball field. He had been racing that car, at least, since 1974...took a break from the LeGrand in 1975 and campaigned an Autodynamics FV.

The other was a Vette at Weatherly...in the 80's....a decade I have little info on.

From what I have gathered in the PHA files... #333 was officially retired as a number...not to be used again.

[Rich Sweigart]

Sam Osborn was the first and from what I have been told, he hit a tree head on going thru the ball field. Sam had a few years of expirence and was well liked. He was driving a LeGrand Formula 2 car( nee Formula C car, would be like a F1000 or Formula Continental today). Only had a rear roll bar, not that would have helped; LeGrands are the American version of a Lotus and tend to just fold up in a crash.
The other fatality was 1989 at Weatherly, just past the finish line and one of the reasons that I tell novices to still be up on the wheel after the finish.
The car was a SCCA Pro Racing Corvette Challenge car in ASP with a full roll cage which got crushed when, the Vette wrapped itself around the tree. The driver was a novice(first event) and spent most of the weekend telling his pit crew how fast he was going over the finish line.

[Mel Horn]

Sam Osborn was the first and from what I have been told, he hit a tree head on going thru the ball field. Sam had a few years of expirence and was well liked. He was driving a LeGrand Formula 2 car( nee Formula C car, would be like a F1000 or Formula Continental today). Only had a rear roll bar, not that would have helped; LeGrands are the American version of a Lotus and tend to just fold up in a crash.
The other fatality was 1989 at Weatherly, just past the finish line and one of the reasons that I tell novices to still be up on the wheel after the finish.
The car was a SCCA Pro Racing Corvette Challenge car in ASP with a full roll cage which got crushed when, the Vette wrapped itself around the tree. The driver was a novice(first event) and spent most of the weekend telling his pit crew how fast he was going over the finish line.

The Corvette had belonged to (or was previously driven by) Bruce Jenner.

The Duryea accident happened in 1978. I was the next car on the hill and was red flagged at Station Five, not knowing what had happened other than "the guy ahead of you spun", and of course turned around and sent back to the start line. My girlfriend and crewmember were sitting at finish, waiting for me to come up. When I didn't show up (and no one else did, either) she asked the Finish worker what had happened and was told, "The white Formula car went in at the ballfield" (Well, I was also driving a white Formula car, only it was a Leda Tui Super Vee) and would not tell her anything else. She was really starting to worry when the PA State Police came down the hill from past turnaround, and matters got worse when she heard a name mentioned from a distance...it's not hard to imagine hearing Osborne and mistaking it for Horn. She finally went up to the finish line workers and said " I mean it, I really have to know!" Then they told her who had crashed. She was actually prepared to tell my family I'd been killed.
The rest of the story that I'd been told over the years was that the fire extinguisher was beside the driver and that is what killed him.

Sam's car had been previously owned by Steve Wilkerson who helps us out at Rose Valley on start line.

[Steve Tumolo]

My Uncle was one of the people on the scene when the Vette crashed and from what I remember him telling me the car went off the hill drivers right, started to flip and hit a tree with the top of roof first and slid down the tree to the bottom of the hill below.


I know why you are asking this question Jeff. And to counter there should also be a list of all the major accidents where the car DID have a cage and the driver was not injured.

[JekylandHyde]

Thanks for the input everyone.

Steve, I can't say that I agree that the people who have wrecked with a cage and been fine would matter to the discussion. Just like the people that have crashed with "just" a roll bar and been uninjuried does not relate.

Supposedly the purpose of the proposed new rule is to reduce
the risk of losing all of the events in the event of another fatality.
Rally keeps being referenced as an example.

From what it sounds like, the Weatherly death was not prevented by the roll cage and the other car (as far as I understand) wouldn't be required the same cage requirements that are being proposed anyway.

The two Rally deaths that are continually referenced also occured regardless of a full cage.

Requiring cages is not going to eliminate the risk of death,
but it will impact racer retention and recruitment.

If making the hills safer and keeping our sport alive is truly the motive for all of this, then why isn't anyone discussing driver requirements?

The Vette driver at Weatherly was a novice, at his first hill.
What qualification and/or experience did he have to run the hills?

I showed up to my first hill with a rather powerful car, paid a few bucks and was allowed to run with no evidence of prior training or skill.

I like to think I had a rather mature approach to starting out hillclimbing which is why I was so slow my first couple of events, butI'm not one to just go hog-wold ...

... but what about the guy that shows up with zilcho-experience and big bucks for big power? Do you you think a cage is going to protect him?

There are far more things we could discuss to make the hills safer beyond turning this into a dedicated race-car only venue.

[Nelson]

The Vette driver at Weatherly was a novice, at his first hill.
What qualification and/or experience did he have to run the hills?

He had an SCCA Pro Race license. His main problem was that he was too busy looking at his speedometer across the finish line. He would tell all who listened how fast he was going over the finish line.

This was before the novice instruction that we now give.

[Matt Rowe]

So Jeff, your approach to minimizing the impact on recruitung new members is to prevent any unexperienced person from running? How is that going to help the long term future of the sport?

There is a system in place to instruct and observe Novices. As Dave has said elsewhere he can't recall (and neither can I) instances of a complete novice having a serious incident. Typically it is either an experience hillclimber pushing their limits, or someone with plenty of track experience who doesn't realize that hillclimbing is different.

Now, where are we going to train people if not on a hill if as soon as they get on a hill they are only going to be overconfident? Or do we require everyone start with a slow car? How many people would we lose if we told them they had to go buy a slow car and race for a year before they are allowed to run the car they want? I don't think you would be here, or me, or most of the people I know. So I'm not clear how you propose we handle novices beyond the current system.

In reality, the officials and workers pay close attention to Novices. We observe their experience level, their car, their safety equipment, their attitude and their driving while on course. More than a few people have been politely spoken to regarding their driving and the risks they face. And in your example if a 19 year old novice were to ever show up with a Z06 they would be one of the most watched people on track, just as you were until we were comfortable with your skill in your car.

Also, I'm not sure about logic that sounds like if the fatality had occured with the cage why should we require anyone have one? What if the impact had been slightly different a cage would have offered a better chance for survival. And cage specs have evolved over the last 20 years. Yes the weatherly incident is a data point but you need to understand the entire incident.

Finally, the officials involved with the incident at Weatherly are among those that have been pushing for this change for the better part of twenty years. I don't think that is a coindence, I would imagine it's based on a first hand assessment of why increased protection is worthwhile. If a fatality due to impact intrusion is a possibilty with serious consequences and we can better protect drivers with a reasonable requirement why wouldn't we?

[JekylandHyde]

Nelson, thanks for clarifying his experience level.

So Jeff, your approach to minimizing the impact on recruitung new members is to prevent any unexperienced person from running? How is that going to help the long term future of the sport?

SCCA has several levels of racing that could easily be signed off prior to letting someone do an actual hill. At the least, doing a handful of autocrosses and/or a level 3 event would be an improvement over the current lack of any experience requirement.

I can assure you, from my experience with trying to get people interested in doing hillclimbs, that type of requirement would be far less of prohibitive than requiring a dedicated, caged race car.

Now, where are we going to train people if not on a hill if as soon as they get on a hill they are only going to be overconfident?

I never implied that we should be responsible for any training. At the very least, we could require Jefferson as an initial event and/or documentation of some other relative racing experience prior to doing a hill.

Or do we require everyone start with a slow car? How many people would we lose if we told them they had to go buy a slow car and race for a year before they are allowed to run the car they want?

I have no response to that as I never even remotely suggested it.
Are you confusing Dave's post on SCCA with me?
He is the one that suggested limiting novices to certain classes, not me.

Also, I'm not sure about logic that sounds like if the fatality had occured with the cage why should we require anyone have one?

I agree, that is not logical, but that is also not the point I was getting at.
My point in learning that was that the proposed rule could potentially prevent us from losing the insurance and/or hills like Rally did because of deaths ... and the simple fact is, we can never eliminate that risk.

I applaud you all for wanting to head off a potential problem,
but my concern is simply that you are creating actual problems in the process.

If a fatality due to impact intrusion is a possibilty with serious consequences and we can better protect drivers with a reasonable requirement why wouldn't we?

Autocross had a driver killed when he spun out and hit a light pole driver's door first. Should autocross require a full cage?

The issue in your last statement is "reasonable" and that is for each person to decide what is reasonable. For me, if you are fine with eliminating street-based cars that have "grown up" from the Solo ranks, then I agree it is very reasonable.

However, as someone only interested in competing in a streetable car, the proposed rule is aboslutely unreasonable as it can't safely be met.

Matt Green told me directly that PHA has already considered the number of drivers this rule could potentially affect and that the organization was fine with losing them.

I'll give you one guess how that made me feel.

Thanks,

[Matt Rowe]

So Jeff, your approach to minimizing the impact on recruitung new members is to prevent any unexperienced person from running? How is that going to help the long term future of the sport?

SCCA has several levels of racing that could easily be signed off prior to letting someone do an actual hill. At the least, doing a handful of autocrosses and/or a level 3 event would be an improvement over the current lack of any experience requirement.

Your missing the point in that experience in an autocross or at a track historically does not translate well to a hill and those that feel they are experienced elsewhere are typically those that more likely to have issues as novice hillclimbers. So why should we require experience that does not help and in some ways boosts a persons confidence past where it should be?

Give me the choice of a fresh novice that is very respectful about a hill and someone with 3 track events that has begun to think he knows how to drive. I'll pick the novice.

I never implied that we should be responsible for any training. At the very least, we could require Jefferson as an initial event and/or documentation of some other relative racing experience prior to doing a hill.

Whether we do it we require it we are accepting someone else we are taking responsibility by approving it. But what would you consider relative racing experience? Hairpin turns, off camber, broken pavement, jumps, dips, and nearby solid objects. About the only places that deal with that are rally. So exactly what experience is someone going to get prior to a hill. Typically the experienced racers are the ones that get caught out trying to run a classic road racing line which rarely works at a hill.

My point in learning that was that the proposed rule could potentially prevent us from losing the insurance and/or hills like Rally did because of deaths ... and the simple fact is, we can never eliminate that risk.

No you can't eliminate every potential risk but we can minimize where appropriate. And the perception of risk and our procedures to minimize have a significant impact on how we are perceived.

I applaud you all for wanting to head off a potential problem,
but my concern is simply that you are creating actual problems in the process.

What actual problem would this create. You allude to a potential problem but what actual problem can you demonstrate?

Autocross had a driver killed when he spun out and hit a light pole driver's door first. Should autocross require a full cage?

An autocross can (and should) be designed to greatly minimize that possibilty. They control the course in relation to light poles. Unless you're ready to wield a chainsaw at every hill we do not. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

[JekylandHyde]

Your missing the point in that experience in an autocross or at a track historically does not translate well to a hill and those that feel they are experienced elsewhere are typically those that more likely to have issues as novice hillclimbers.

Actually, I wasn't missing the point, I was missing the statistics on what has been the experience - hence this thread.

Going by what I am learning in here, I can understand how a "respectful novice" might be more safety-conscious than an over-confident experienced driver.

So why should we require experience that does not help ...

Well regardless of actual risk, I thought you might be concerned about appearance/perception:

No you can't eliminate every potential risk but we can minimize where appropriate. And the perception of risk and our procedures to minimize have a significant impact on how we are perceived.

But what would you consider relative racing experience?

Matt, please read my complete sentence.

"At the very least, we could require Jefferson as an initial event and/or documentation of some other relative racing experience prior to doing a hill."

Where did I say experience relative to hill climbing in that sentence?
I said Jefferson OR relative experience.

Please don't take my words out of context.

What actual problem would this create. You allude to a potential problem but what actual problem can you demonstrate?

The problem, for me, would be that the proposed rule will effectively be eliminating the streetable cars from the hills.

You are correct that that isn't actually a problem for SCCA though since it's been made abundantly clear that losing those entrants is acceptable.

As someone who has done a lot of recruiting of new drivers,
I'm 100% positive that this rule will affect growth & retention.

[gdh57]

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with the proposed cage rules – I haven't decided yet – but I am also someone that is new to hillclimbing, so my perspective might be useful as far as new recruits go.

When I first started thinking about hillclimbing, I considered converting my street Scirocco, but decided that a car that was competitive on the hills would not be driveable on the street. My other Scirocco is only mildly modified, and it is already close to being too stiff for the potholes I deal with on my daily commute.

So I started looking around for a car to use for hillclimbs only, and found my current car for $3500. It was already prepared to the level I wanted to start with, and already had a full cage. It only needed a kill switch to become "SCCA legal".

I was actually quite surprised to find out later that I could have run a car prepared for one of the SP or SM autocross classes and would have only needed a roll bar. But even if I had known, I would not have considered it. I am not comfortable running a hillclimb without a full cage – there are too many solid objects on each side of the road to hit, and it is too easy to roll the car.

In fact, after hillclimbing for a year, I decided to upgrade my cage, as the cage that the car came with did not have sidebars. If my funds were limited, I could have simply added the sidebars for very little money – a few $100 at most, which is less than the cost of a set of tires. In fact, the entire cage that originally came with the car (including sidebars) can be had for approximately $650 from Kirk Racing.

However, I decided to go for a custom welded cage, not only for the safety improvements but for the extra chassis stiffening that the welded cage provides over the bolt-in one (the car now feels like a little go cart). And yes, BTW, I will be the first to admit that my new cage is bit overkill, and am not suggesting that everyone should have the same cage.

Anyway, while I would never be one to force my own conservative safety requirements onto anyone else (except Keith – he doesn't get a choice unless he gets his own car ), having the cage rule in place would have done nothing to deter me from starting to hillclimb.

Grace

[JekylandHyde]

Thanks for the insight Grace. That is really useful information.

I had suggested before that the novices be polled as to if a cage vs bar would have prevented them from getting involved. As far as I know, that has not been followed up on which makes sense. Why bother polling a group you find expendable?

I know myself and Scott Barton would have never done a hill with a cage requirement. I'm pretty sure Fabio would never have started climbing if a full cage would have been required, but I'm not in a position to speak for him.

[RX-Midget]

Ok, I was a Novice last year on the hills so here is my response to the question of if roll cages would have prevented me from running. The long version…

I used to have a "more" stock Midget that I discovered the world of auto-x with. I had already installed a street roll bar in that car so running in DP was not a problem. Then about a year later I stopped to do some work and pick the Midget up from my parent’s garage. All I did that day was install roll bar foam on a section of the bar near my head.

Hey, I didn't know that just 1 hour later I would be in an accident that would push the rear bumper up to the front of the trunk & buckle both rockers. It was a full width rear impact at about 50 mph by a larger Acura who didn’t see me stopped to make a left turn.

Anyway, I am convinced that the roll bar AND the FOAM saved my life. When I came too, the car was drifting off the road from the impact and ready to hit a tree. I stopped it and rolled out of the car onto the ground. I had a bit of blood on my head and a slight concussion, but otherwise OK. My head hit right were the padding was as the seat back collapsed. All the damage to the car was confined and didn’t go past the point where the roll bar was bolted in the car. This convinced me that the extra structure in the car was a good thing.

After that, I started to build the current Midget to run EM auto-x but always had the thought to make it road race legal so I could run just about anywhere. Considering the performance of the car I elected to put a cage in the car that came out of a friends GP road racing Midget for $200 (he wanted a “new” asymmetrical style cage). I didn’t need a cage, jut a roll bar to be legal but I was not comfortable with adding 4 times the horsepower to an “older” car and have it stay safe and straight. As time went along, changes to the cage were made and extra braces added. Sure I was at a disadvantage in EM with a cage and DOT’s and a license plate, but guess what I still did well enough to take the DC Metro auto-x championship and drive the car on the street.

So no, a roll cage would not have prevented me from starting in auto-x, track days or hills and drive on the street. In fact, I am making some changes to the car now to make it safer for hills. I’ve driven the car on the street in 6 states and even had a police officer in VA pull me over just cause he thought the car was cool looking and wanted to talk to me, but I have never been questioned by the police about a cage in the car – and it is not just hiding inside of a tin-top car.

To be honest, I feel safer in that car on the street then my Mazda3 with all its airbags and ABS and EBF and what ever gizmo crap it has.

[Matt Rowe]

The problem, for me, would be that the proposed rule will effectively be eliminating the streetable cars from the hills.

No Jeff, the problem for you is the rule eliminates what you think are streetable cars. That is not a universal perception.

You are correct that that isn't actually a problem for SCCA though since it's been made abundantly clear that losing those entrants is acceptable.

At no time have I or have I heard anyone say losing entrants or potential entrants is not a concern. But it may be the lesser of two evils.

As someone who has done a lot of recruiting of new drivers,
I'm 100% positive that this rule will affect growth & retention.

Then demonstrate that. Give us facts and numbers to indicate what the impact will be. But please don't keep stating your perceptions and expect people to accept them as facts..

[JekylandHyde]

No Jeff, the problem for you is the rule eliminates what you think are streetable cars. That is not a universal perception.

No, not just me. It may not be universal, but it sure seems to be the majority of people I am talking to.
I will gladly link you to three current threads on three other boards were the vast majority of people think that a cage in a street car is very dangerous idea.
I also offered you a quote from a national magazine indicating the dangers.

At no time have I or have I heard anyone say losing entrants or potential entrants is not a concern. But it may be the lesser of two evils.

Again:

Matt Green told me directly that PHA has already considered the number of drivers this rule could potentially affect and that the organization was fine with losing them.

Then demonstrate that. Give us facts and numbers to indicate what the impact will be. But please don't keep stating your perceptions and expect people to accept them as facts.

Again:

I know myself and Scott Barton would have never done a hill with a cage requirement. I'm pretty sure Fabio would never have started climbing if a full cage would have been required, but I'm not in a position to speak for him.

Additionally, as I've told you previously, I've been talking to quite a few people about doing hills and a full cage would be a deal-breaker for them.

As Dave Y said on the SCCA forum, PHA used the "roll bar only" requirement to entice Solo2ers to jump up to hills when your numbers were dangerously low.

If you do, in fact, have concern about the affect of recruitment & retention of the proposed rule, why haven't you polled the people who have "just bars?"

Instead, from what Matt G. tells me, you all made a point of looking at entrants all throughout last year to determine the number of drivers that would be impacted by this rule and decided you were okay with losing them if that ended up being the case.

If you all were looking at this that far in advance, how much effort would it have taken to ask the new drivers this year if they would be here if they needed a cage?

I am not talking jsut from my opinion. I've written to NHTSA.
I've called the State Police to check the legality and spoken with local police on the matter.

As for facts and numbers instead of perceptions, isn't perception/opinion what this rule is based on? What data is the rule proposal based on. This question on the first page of that thread has yet to be answered:

No one has put forth a documented history of hill climb injuries that would have been prevented by a full cage. Without data, you are just another opinion. I am a licensed road racer, and I vote no mandatory cage for Level 4 TT.

It's amazing this is suddenly such a priority but it has not ever really been an issue - has it?

[Matt Rowe]

No, not just me. It may not be universal, but it sure seems to be the majority of people I am talking to.
I will gladly link you to three current threads on three other boards were the vast majority of people think that a cage in a street car is very dangerous idea.
I also offered you a quote from a national magazine indicating the dangers.

It is not the majority opinion with the people I have talked to and I have looked at other threads and they are based on sketchy "data" but I have noted their opinions. However, even the MR2 reference you pointed to previously clearly shows an illegal cage installation with no padding. Your reference to the SCC article was also a somewhat distorted interpretation of what was written referring to chassis strengthening cages not safety cages.

Matt Green told me directly that PHA has already considered the number of drivers this rule could potentially affect and that the organization was fine with losing them.

I am not aware that PHA has discussed that nor is it PHA's place to decide. PHA's role is to provide constitency within the series but it is NOT a rules making orgranization. That is the SCCA's role and is done with member input. I think you'll find no listing for PHA in the membership and they are not a member of the TTAC or BOD where the decision will be made.

Then demonstrate that. Give us facts and numbers to indicate what the impact will be. But please don't keep stating your perceptions and expect people to accept them as facts.

Again:

I know myself and Scott Barton would have never done a hill with a cage requirement. I'm pretty sure Fabio would never have started climbing if a full cage would have been required, but I'm not in a position to speak for him.

Additionally, as I've told you previously, I've been talking to quite a few people about doing hills and a full cage would be a deal-breaker for them.

That's fine Jeff, you show 2 good and 1 iffy peice of data. Then you make a vague statement about "quite a few people" Still, put all that in a letter and send it.

Instead, from what Matt G. tells me, you all made a point of looking at entrants all throughout last year to determine the number of drivers that would be impacted by this rule and decided you were okay with losing them if that ended up being the case.

So the worst case scenario was considered.

If you all were looking at this that far in advance, how much effort would it have taken to ask the new drivers this year if they would be here if they needed a cage?

You're assuming this isn't part of the discussion I have when new people call wanting to join in. In my experience with that I haven't had one state a cage requirement would prevent them from running.

I am not talking jsut from my opinion. I've written to NHTSA.
I've called the State Police to check the legality and spoken with local police on the matter.

Great, when you have responses and data, include it in your letter. Until then it is just your opinion and while I respect your opinion it is only one of many varying opinions.

As for facts and numbers instead of perceptions, isn't perception/opinion what this rule is based on? What data is the rule proposal based on. This question on the first page of that thread has yet to be answered:

The proposal is based on the percieved risk because that is the danger to the program. You (and others) are concerned about the potential impact ias a loss of drivers. While perception is hard to quantify you continue to assert that you can demonstrate what the impact is. So do so. Again send in a letter.

As for why the data for the proposal hasn't been presented and your all important question answered, it is because perception and risk are hard to quantify. And when you are talking about rare occurences the data to prove the point may just be the same instance that results in the end of hillclimbs under SCCA. Considering the sample size we have to work with statisically significant data is impractical for injuries. I do know that in my own job we deal with probabilities that can never be established by real world data or even lab testing because the risk of being on the wrong side is too high. So we rely on extreme worst case assumption and conservative approaches. Be glad the next time you hop on a plane that we don't have a "wait until we have a incident" approach.

No one has put forth a documented history of hill climb injuries that would have been prevented by a full cage. Without data, you are just another opinion. I am a licensed road racer, and I vote no mandatory cage for Level 4 TT.

It's amazing this is suddenly such a priority but it has not ever really been an issue - has it?

Unless I missed this something I can't find any source for this quote you produced and can't see why you restating it is relevant. But this has been an issue for decades and been discussed for an exceptionally long time. It most certainly has been both a priority and an issue for a number of people.

Finally, Jeff obviously we are all aware of your opinions on this issue. While I have tried to respond in order to demonstrate that everyone's concerns are being considered I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you. The only thing I can say to you and everyone is what I have been saying all along. Write up a letter and send it in. Try to not just give an opinion but persuade the TTAC why you are right, not just through passion but well reasoned arguments. No one's input will be ignored.

[JekylandHyde]

Matt, the entire point of this thread was to collect data to write a letter not based soley on 'opinion.' I'm sure you can respect that. In fact, you might note when this thread was started in relation to your implications on the other forum that no one had been writing in to the SCCA on the subject at hand.

Both you and Matt G indicated that their would be a request for input from members in Fastrak. I was diligently waiting for that request, as per your instruction, and you keep throwing it up that no one has written a letter yet! Why hammer us for following your instruction?!

You have since made it clear that there is no need for that wait so I wanted to collect information; hence this thread and others.

That being said, I don't suppose I could get a phone number or e-mail list of the novices from the past 3 years

I have no qualms about writing factual letters to SCCA in regards to proposed rules ... why do you think aftermarket hoods are now allowed on the front of mid-engine cars in SM2

You're assuming this isn't part of the discussion I have when new people call wanting to join in. In my experience with that I haven't had one state a cage requirement would prevent them from running.

I'm only left with making that "assumption" based on your lack of response to my direct question on this matter on the SCCA forum. I specifically asked you if this research was done.

Regardless, if you did in fact do this research and haven't found "one," then you didn't ask everyone because Scott Barton who was a novice this year has already made it clear that he wouldn't have been here if a cage was required.

[jmullins]

I was a novice last year.
I was also a fireman for a number of years.
After seeing the aftermath of enough car/tree accidents, there is no way I would run a hillclimb without a good cage.

[Champ]

I was a novice in 2005. I bought a car with a cage because I didn't want to hit a tree without one. I had considered running my WRX, but there was no way I wanted to go that fast without a cage and I didn't see any convenient way of installing one that wouldn't get in the way on the street. Put me in the cage column.